VGC: Nintendo Switch 2 to have 512GB Internal Storage and Backwards compatibility

No BC and I'm out of Nintendo's ecosystem.

I don't expect that to be a breaking point for many people, but I'm absolutely not going to rebuy my games again after every other system normalised BC.

Edit: and that has to include physical games.
 
Last edited:
existensmaximum said:
Sounds reasonable. LCD is cheaper than OLED so that's a 100% given and there is no way it will push 4k graphics, so 512GB is the absolute max we should be expecting. If even that?
Click to expand...
We don't even have the technology to make Series S portable yet. Doubt it would have 4K assets.
 
WhiteWaterM00se said:
I know i mentioned this many times. But, I see "Pro's and Con's" of BC from business standpoint, but…I wonder how the consumer and public will react if there is NO BC.

I feel like Nintendo has an opportunity to have the biggest launch since the PS1 to PS2. It would be amazing to me if Nintendo, pulls a Nintendo and loses that momentum.


ALSO, FOOD FOR THOUGHT…NINTENDO HAS MENTIONED REPEATEDLY that getting NSO online users to continue subscribing as they transition to "future hardware". ***IF*** Switch 2 is not BC, all those freebies on NSO online MK8 DLC, Animal Crossing DLC, Splatoon 2 DLC, etc are no longer compatible. What incentive do consumers have to believe Nintendo about NSO and also a digital future from Nintendo?
Click to expand...
Eh?
I've bought MK8 on two consoles and with NSO my progress never carried over from the WiiU.

The only time I remembered this being a thing was with Rock Band and carrying over RB1 and maybe RB2 songs.

Maybe I don't understand the precedent here
 
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable said:
No BC and I'm out of Nintendo's ecosystem.

I don't expect that to be a breaking point for many people, but I'm absolutely not going to rebuy my games again after every other system normalised BC.

Edit: and that has to include physical games.
Click to expand...
What's really sad is, they used to be the ones who really pushed BC. The Wii played GC games and the Wii U played Wii games. The same went for their handhelds up through the 3DS. They dropped the ball on Virtual Console, but for the most part they've historically beeb a big BC proponent.

It made sense that the move to the Switch and cartridges would cause an interruption to the pattern, but they'll really have no excuse if the Switch 2 isn't BC. I HOPE they don't drop BC, especially not at the behest of greedy publishers who are blaming the low attach rate of PS5 games on backwards compatability and a persistent library rather than the fact that they JUST hiked game prices.

The only good thing about a lack of BC would be clearing the shovelware out of the Switch 2 eShop like a brushfire... but they could always do that by making devs/pubs re-submit their software to be certified for the new hardware. So, yeah, no good reason and no good outcome.

I'm just glad I held off on those poorly performing Co-op games that I really wanted to play with my girl (looking at you Hyrule Warriors).
 
existensmaximum said:
Sounds reasonable. LCD is cheaper than OLED so that's a 100% given and there is no way it will push 4k graphics, so 512GB is the absolute max we should be expecting. If even that?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I expected storage to be in line with the base Steam Deck, if that. 512 would be pretty nice actually, assuming we'll still be able to suplement with SD cards.
 
acm2000 said:
We COULD make a series s portable, it's 75w underload even without any mobile/screen res optimisations, gaming laptops are way more.
Click to expand...
It also has to cost minimum 500 USD. So, not until power consumption is atleast 20w.
 
Even towards the end of PS3 & 360 which were giving 250/500gb options, Wii U launched with 8/32gb storage. This seems quite generous coming from Nintendo. Hope it is atleast as fast as Xbox series sad.
 
It's Nintendo. You're certainly not getting 512gb internal SSD storage


LCD isn't an issue, as long as the display is great.

8 inches…probably still 720p?
 
Sleepwalker said:
LCD display

Im out. (Not really but goddamit nintendo)
Click to expand...
It's made by Sharpe so infinitely better than the Switch launch screens at least.

I couldn't give a bollocks as I use mine 95% of the time while docked.

10-15x CPU. 12 GB RAM. SSD. Faster, larger game carts. 1.5TFLOP mobile / 3TFLOP docked GPU. Dedicated silicon for RT + DLSS. $399. October 2024. 3D Mario as launch games.

Vince McMahon.gif
 
I'll keep my Oled and see if there's any exploits once Nintendo move on to their next system. Still got my n3DS, don't see the point in shifting Nintendo handhelds when their backwards compatibility is all over the place.
 
NateTheHate and MVG were also adamant about the Switch Pro. So their track record is sketchy. Let's just wait until Nintendo reveals this thing for real.
 
Minsc said:
512GB is pretty bad for a gaming system. 2-4 AAA games fills that up (figuring like ~420GB or so after formatting / OS and reserved space given PS5 was 1TB -> 800GB). Starfield being 125GBs, so like 3 of those, and FFVIIR Part 2 being what like 200GBs, maybe just 2 of those. But I guess you can probably fit ~100 Nintendo games in that space so maybe it's fine, not like it'll be for AAA games other than Nintendo's anyway.

If they went with 64GB or 128GB you'd have third party launch games not fitting on the system.
Click to expand...
You know this is not going to achieve spec parity with current gen, right? Nobody is releasing 100+ GB games on this unless it's something completely unoptimized, and probably not something you'd buy on Switch 2 anyway.
The current biggest game for Switch seems to be about 55GB, and the distant second is 33GB.

If Nintendo is really going to give Switch 2 EIGHT TIMES the storage of the current OLED model, they themselves must have been working on some high-res assets and are planning to release games quite a bit bigger than TOTK's measly 18GB. But fat chance something like Starfield is coming to this system without the cloud.
 
Minsc said:
512GB is pretty bad for a gaming system. 2-4 AAA games fills that up (figuring like ~420GB or so after formatting / OS and reserved space given PS5 was 1TB -> 800GB). Starfield being 125GBs, so like 3 of those, and FFVIIR Part 2 being what like 200GBs, maybe just 2 of those. But I guess you can probably fit ~100 Nintendo games in that space so maybe it's fine, not like it'll be for AAA games other than Nintendo's anyway.

If they went with 64GB or 128GB you'd have third party launch games not fitting on the system.
Click to expand...

wut? 512GB would be amazing...They're certainly not going to go with the same assets etc for a PS4 tier handheld.
 
Sleepwalker said:
LCD display

Im out. (Not really but goddamit nintendo)
Click to expand...
I vastly prefer LCD to OLED in a handheld like this. See, OLED isn't being used on PC's, laptops and tablets for a reason (there's demand and a few idiots with deep pockets using oled tv's as pc monitors so there are now a few examples sure, but that doesn't make the technology ideal for such uses). And a console is not supposed to have the lifespan of a mobile phone. Launch Switch is 7 years old, if it was oled at launch you'd be hearing a lot of worn out screens. Also not a good balance for the lite version.

You just know they'll do a OLED version afterwards as well, don't you?
JordiENP said:
and there's also this new thing called mini led.
Click to expand...
This is what they should be using, yes.
existensmaximum said:
Sounds reasonable. LCD is cheaper than OLED so that's a 100% given and there is no way it will push 4k graphics, so 512GB is the absolute max we should be expecting. If even that?
Click to expand...
Actually... One of the reasons they did the Switch OLED is that although still a bit more expensive, it's really close these days.

It's believed that the new revision only costs Nintendo about $10 more than a regular Switch to produce. According to industry research firm DSCC's Yoshio Tamura (via Bloomberg), the new OLED screen costs between $3 - $5 per unit to manufacture.
Click to expand...
Source: https://screenrant.com/nintendo-switch-oled-price-increase-production-cost/

OLED has the potential to be cheaper than LCD, as it's a functionally simpler display.
 
Last edited:
lostinblue said:
I vastly prefer LCD to OLED in a handheld like this. See, OLED isn't being used on PC's, laptops and tablets for a reason you know (there's demand so there are a few examples sure, but that doesn't make the technology ideal for such uses). And a console is not supposed to have the lifespan of a mobile phone.

You just know they'll do a OLED version afterwards as well, don't you?
Click to expand...
It is much easier for a company like Nintendo to deliver a great contrast, pure blacks, and superb colors if they use even a cheaper an OLED panel than the kind of LCD panel they are likely going to sprint money for (not the best one you can imagine ;)).

That makes people a bit sad as they are walking back a significant step display wise…
 
tkscz said:
Before Nintendo canceled it, the Switch "Pro" was going to use the 16GB Orin AGX (1700 CUDA core model and not the 2048 CUDA core model), I don't think they would then downgrade from there. The Switch uses the AGX model of the X1 after all.

But considering the timing here they are giving for production, might run on Tegra Thor instead of Orin. They waited on the 5nm Ampere+ before nvidia cann'd it, sure they could wait a little longer for Thor.
Click to expand...
Orin agx power consumption is above 15w. for comparison, Switch's power consumption in tv mode is 7 watts and 9 watts undocked
 
Last edited:
As long as Nintendo don't call their next console Switch U then they should be fine.

Backward compatibility is an absolute must for a successor to the Switch to succeed, especially with digital game ownership. No-one wants to have to buy their games all over again or have to keep hold of their old systems. This is something Microsoft and Sony got right with their current systems, although arguably the former has done a better job of preserving their library across multiple generations and enhancing them for modern displays.
 
Panajev2001a said:
It is much easier for a company like Nintendo to deliver a great contrast, pure blacks, and superb colors if they use even a cheaper an OLED panel than the kind of LCD panel they are likely going to sprint money for (not the best one you can imagine ;)).

That makes people a bit sad as they are walking back a significant step display wise…
Click to expand...
They're doing a contract with Sharp, I'm sure the LCD will be decent. For them Nintendo is a big client.

But I get where you're coming from.
Sophist said:
Orin agx power consumption is above 15w. for comparison, Switch's power consumption in tv mode is 7 watts and 9 watts undocked
Click to expand...
Never assume Nintendo to use the stock specs in regards to original sheet power draw in a high performance part. Also, Orin AGX has a 10w mode:

Jetson Orin is designed with a high efficiency Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC), voltage regulators, and power tree to optimize power efficiency. It supports three optimized power budgets, such as 10 watts, 15 watts, and 30 watts. For each power budget, several configurations are possible with various CPU frequencies and number of cores online.
Click to expand...
Source: https://docs.nvidia.com/jetson/arch...JetsonOrinNxSeriesAndJetsonAgxOrinSeries.html

And they'll be sure to tune it down as much as they can.

Also, we're assuming they will be using an Orin NX 8GB, but an Orin Nanon 8GB seems more likely.

Orin nano 8GB has a 7W mode:

Jetson Orin Nano 8GB Module

Power 7W - 15W
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.siliconhighwaydirect.com/product-p/900-13767-0030-000.htm

And still does 1.28 Tflops, that's PS4 performance considering the gpu architecture improvements.
 
Last edited:
so is it backwards compatible or not?

the conspiracy theorist in me smells Nintendo ninjas spreading disinformation with the whole "it IS backwards compatible" / "it is NOT backwards compatible" simultaneous claims. oh Nintendo you cheeky devils xD
 
Last edited:
Zannegan said:
What's really sad is, they used to be the ones who really pushed BC. The Wii played GC games and the Wii U played Wii games. The same went for their handhelds up through the 3DS. They dropped the ball on Virtual Console, but for the most part they've historically beeb a big BC proponent.

It made sense that the move to the Switch and cartridges would cause an interruption to the pattern, but they'll really have no excuse if the Switch 2 isn't BC. I HOPE they don't drop BC, especially not at the behest of greedy publishers who are blaming the low attach rate of PS5 games on backwards compatability and a persistent library rather than the fact that they JUST hiked game prices.

The only good thing about a lack of BC would be clearing the shovelware out of the Switch 2 eShop like a brushfire... but they could always do that by making devs/pubs re-submit their software to be certified for the new hardware. So, yeah, no good reason and no good outcome.

I'm just glad I held off on those poorly performing Co-op games that I really wanted to play with my girl (looking at you Hyrule Warriors).
Click to expand...
If they change architectures. And if so they'd better switch over to something markedly superior.
 
Hudo said:
NateTheHate and MVG were also adamant about the Switch Pro. So their track record is sketchy. Let's just wait until Nintendo reveals this thing for real.
Click to expand...
This. People are wrong about Nintendo ALL THE TIME, even credible sources. The wall of secrecy around Nintendo is the strongest in the industry. I remember the lead up to the Switch speculation was rampant and nobody got anything right.

I'm still confident no one knows jack shit about this thing TBH
 
It will 100% be backward compatible 1000000%, To date mario kart 8 deluxe has sold 55m+ copies on switch do you seriously think Nintendo is going to leave just under half its player base in the lurch with a new console and no new Mario kart at launch.. that's just one example.

Guys girls relax it will be BC 100% and it will have fuck all onboard storage and no voice chat for online these things are Nintendo guarantees.
 
I'll be contrarian for once and say that 8" kind of matters more to me than OLED (given those are almost exclusively smaller still, even in the PC handheld space nothing comes close).
Not saying I wouldn't like to have an OLED - but the biggest reason for one would be HDR capabilities (other trade-offs are not nearly as impactful in device like this, and lower brightness capacity is somewhat detrimental in a handheld) - which noone on the market has done yet except for phones - and chances of Nintendo being the first - yea I wouldn't bet on it.

The rest - we'll see I guess, I'd appreciate more ergonomic design for joycons, but not holding my hopes too high.
 
Ogbert said:
I don't actually think they could.
Click to expand...
they did when going from Wii U to Switch.

Not that i'm advocating for them not to have BC but if it didn't at launch i would not be surprised. The console has sold 130 million units, everyone slightly interested in gaming likely has one in their home at this point, and anyone waiting for a sequel also probably owns one in their home. Plus the lack of it would mean that they could get away with selling you the same games... again.

Backwards compatibility will not stop people from paying $470 to play Mario Kart 9 or the new Open World Zelda. eedeeswodeedes.
 
Last edited:
Ogbert said:
I don't actually think they could.

This thing has to have BC. Without it, it will still be popular, but if they want to maintain their absurd sales, it needs to play vanilla switch games.
Click to expand...
I really want it to have it and think it should as something that would benefit their base. The problem is the Switch is already massive with the next one almost assured to be as big if not bigger. That's a lot of potential sales waiting to happen again for stuff people already own. Hopefully I'm just being overly skeptical about it. Sadly what seems like the no-brainer choice is pushed aside for bigger profits.
 
It will almost certainly be backwards compatible but they likely will do what Sony does and make you pay for upgrades. Not sure why people think they won't. Nintendo can be strange but they actually have a better record of this than Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo has the money pay Nvidia to make them a custom chip that is backward compatible. Just because Nvidia doesn't have backwards compatibility at the core of their chips doesn't mean anything.
 
Being backward compatible is necessary for all the games that run like crap on the original hardware and are "stuck" there unless Nintendo plans to re-release everything. And no, before you say they're going to do that so you repurchase it at full price, it's actually cheaper for them to make the device run Switch games and charge you for the upgrade.

The console should do its best to give enough performance to run those games at 60fps. And I'd love it if the dock could provide extra cooling to squeeze more performance. I don't think it'll be the case, though, since they'll go the Steam Deck way and probably make it more performant at lower wattages.
 
Hudo said:
NateTheHate and MVG were also adamant about the Switch Pro. So their track record is sketchy. Let's just wait until Nintendo reveals this thing for real.
Click to expand...
Pro was very likely in development but COVID and chip shortages probably killed it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The backwards compatibility of the Switch 2 is just rad <3
2
95
7K
rkofan87 replied
System Shock Remake announced for Nintendo Switch and Switch 2
News 
19
154
WhiteWaterM00se replied
Modern Vintage Gamer: Nintendo Switch 2 Backward Compatibility Tested - It's Good!
Analysis Trailer Hardware 
23
9K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Switch 2 Loading Speed Test: SD Express vs. Internal Storage vs. Game Card
15
6K
readonly replied
Nintendo patent may point to Nintendo DS content coming to Switch/Switch 2
Rumor Platform 
18
238
CuteFaceJay replied
Top Bottom